Last updated: July 28, 2025
Introduction
The case of Craig v. CenturyLink, Inc., docket number 0:18-cv-00296, exemplifies contemporary legal disputes arising from alleged violations of federal and state regulations concerning employment practices and the telecommunication industry's responsibilities under privacy and consumer protection laws. The litigation, initiated in the District of Minnesota, addresses complex issues related to data privacy, employment discrimination, and contractual obligations.
Case Background
Plaintiff, Jane Craig, a former employee of CenturyLink, Inc., filed this civil action on February 9, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1681x, along with state-level claims of employment discrimination and breach of contract. Craig contends that CenturyLink, during her termination process, improperly conducted background checks, failed to provide mandated disclosures, and discriminated against her based on protected characteristics.
The defendant, CenturyLink Inc., a major telecommunications provider, maintains that its employment screening processes conformed with applicable laws and that any adverse employment actions were justified and compliant with federal and state regulations.
Legal Issues and Claims
1. Violations of FCRA
Craig alleges that CenturyLink failed to adhere to the FCRA requirements by not providing appropriate notices and disclosures concerning background checks. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that CenturyLink did not furnish a standalone disclosure prior to procuring a background check, violating federal law designed to safeguard consumer privacy and informed consent.
2. Employment Discrimination and Retaliation
The complaint asserts claims under Minnesota state law, including wrongful termination based on discrimination related to gender and race, and retaliation for her complaint about workplace misconduct. Plaintiff argues that adverse employment decisions directly resulted from discriminatory treatment and whistleblower protections, which are shielded under state employment statutes.
3. Breach of Contract and Promissory Estoppel
Craig further alleges that CenturyLink breached employment agreements and implied contracts, particularly concerning promised job security and fair employment practices. She claims that the company’s actions, including alleged wrongful termination without proper cause, constitute a breach of contractual and equitable obligations.
Defendant’s Response
CenturyLink denied the allegations, asserting compliance with all applicable laws concerning background checks and employment procedures. The company argued that disclosures and notifications were appropriately provided, and that employment decisions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds.
The defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the discrimination and retaliation claims, contending that there was no evidence substantiating employee bias or retaliation that resulted in adverse employment actions.
Procedural Developments
The case progressed through several procedural stages:
-
Motion to Dismiss: CenturyLink filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), seeking to dismiss certain claims, particularly those related to the FCRA violations, on the grounds that the complaint lacked specific factual allegations.
-
Discovery Phase: The parties engaged in comprehensive discovery, including document production concerning background check procedures, employment records, and internal policies.
-
Summary Judgment: Pending motions for summary judgment are expected to be filed, as both sides seek to establish whether genuine disputes of material facts exist.
Legal Analysis
Compliance with FCRA
The core legal question centers on whether CenturyLink complied with FCRA's disclosure and authorization requirements. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b), users of consumer reports must obtain a written authorization from the consumer, provided in a “standalone” document distinct from employment applications. The complaint's success depends on demonstrating that CenturyLink failed to meet this standard.
Recent case law emphasizes strict adherence to FCRA disclosures. Courts scrutinize the clarity and timing of notices. Failure to comply can lead to statutory damages, as allowed by 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, and attorneys' fees.
Employment Discrimination Claims
The discrimination allegations must meet the prima facie standard, demonstrating that Craig belonged to a protected class, was qualified for her position, suffered adverse employment actions, and that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably. The standard for establishing retaliation claims, under Minnesota law and federal Title VII, also necessitates showing a causal link between protected activity (e.g., lodging workplace complaints) and adverse employment decisions.
Breach of Contract and Promissory Estoppel
Plaintiff’s claims rely on contractual language or company policies that promised employment stability. The legal analysis evaluates whether relevant employment agreements contained enforceable promises and whether CenturyLink’s conduct breached those promises or induced reliance, warranting equitable remedies.
Potential Outcomes and Implications
-
FCRA Violations: A finding that CenturyLink failed to comply with disclosure requirements could result in statutory damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief mandating procedural changes.
-
Discrimination and Retaliation Claims: If proven, these could lead to compensatory damages, reinstatement, or policy reforms. Conversely, dismissing these claims could reinforce employer protections under current statutes.
-
Contract Claims: Successful breach claims can result in damages or specific performance, influencing employment policy standards and contractual drafting.
The case underscores the importance of compliance with federal screening laws and fair employment practices, especially in sensitive industries like telecommunications.
Conclusion and Future Outlook
The litigation illustrates ongoing corporate accountability issues in employment screening and discrimination. As the case proceeds toward summary judgment, the outcome will significantly impact employer compliance obligations and employee protections.
For industry players, proactive legal compliance and transparent employment practices remain essential. The case also signals the judiciary’s increasing scrutiny of background check procedures and employment discrimination allegations.
Key Takeaways
- Key legal compliance obligations under the FCRA include standalone disclosures and proper authorization procedures; failure to adhere risks statutory damages and reputational harm.
- Employment discrimination and retaliation claims require concrete evidence of adverse actions linked to protected activities; employers must maintain documented, consistent practices.
- Contractual protections in employment relationships must be clear, enforceable, and supported by substantive evidence to succeed.
- Litigation can serve as a tool for employees to enforce privacy rights and fair employment standards, but proof must meet strict legal standards.
- Employers should review their background check policies, disclosure procedures, and anti-discrimination policies regularly to mitigate legal risks.
FAQs
Q1. What are the primary legal requirements for background checks under the FCRA?
Employers must provide a clear, standalone written disclosure before obtaining a consumer report and obtain written authorization from the employee or applicant, as per 15 U.S.C. § 1681b.
Q2. How does the case impact employer background screening policies?
It underscores the necessity for strict compliance with FCRA disclosures, authorization procedures, and record-keeping to avoid violations that could lead to damages and legal scrutiny.
Q3. Can employees sue for discrimination based on adverse employment decisions related to background checks?
Yes. If adverse decisions are based on discriminatory reasons or improper background check practices, employees can pursue claims under federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
Q4. What are common defenses employers might use in such cases?
Employers often argue compliance with legal requirements, legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for employment actions, and absence of causation between protected activities and adverse decisions.
Q5. What lessons can HR professionals learn from Craig v. CenturyLink?
HR should ensure transparent hiring and termination procedures, rigorous compliance with the FCRA, regular training on employment laws, and thorough documentation of employment decisions.
Sources:
- 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1681x, Fair Credit Reporting Act.
- Court filings and docket for Craig v. CenturyLink, Inc., 0:18-cv-00296 (D. Minn.).
- Federal Trade Commission guidelines on FCRA compliance.
- Minnesota Human Rights Act.
